It feels good to be conscious

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Jonas Long said:

I don't really understand what you are saying, can you rephrase this? 

One who has little might assume it’s easier for one who has much to be happy or happier. The ‘threading a camel through the eye of a needle’ points to the impossibility of this, like the phrase ‘trying to bend the spoon’. What’s overlooked & overlooking (if this were the case, not to imply it is) is already happiness (‘itself’). 

 

On the Namaste… I didn’t say they don’t understand, I said ‘they’ would have to overlook what the word means in arrogance & ignorance, as it’s the ‘recognition of God in you’ (as in not two, an acknowledgement beyond appearance and therein differences - literally: ‘a bowing to you’). To make fun of this is to overlook the ignorance (ignoring that it feels subtly off) and the proceeding anyways in arrogance (having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities).

 

If one is offended by ‘my usage’ of ‘one’s own word’, from ‘one’s own language’… one could simply ask what the word means. 

 

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Is life about experiencing what I want or being content and ok with what I already have? 🤔  because sometimes you say this and other times you say that .

Great question.

Life is a dualistic conceptualization based on the belief in life & death. Life is not in perception or sensation.

(The QM’s thread & Schrodinger’s cat would be great for this.) 

Consider the survival / separate self paradigm vs direct experience / consciously creating. 

[Jonas Long]

@Philit's actually just a greeting.  But something like arrogance might be making it so my point can't be heard.  Again, this isn't just me, maybe I'm doing a bad job getting the point across.  

[Phil]

@Jonas Long

The contemporary usage is more casual, like a greeting. 

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

@Jonas Long

The contemporary usage is more casual, like a greeting. 

What is it to use one word from a language you don't actually speak used as a signifier for something you identify as?  What is the point?    It's just as dumb when American punk bands sing in an English accent to seem genuinely "punk".

[Orb]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

What is it to use one word from a language you don't actually speak used as a signifier for something you identify as?  What is the point?    It's just as dumb when American punk bands sing in an English accent to seem genuinely "punk".

I don't see stuff like this commonly anyways, I think you're speaking about a relatively small group of people. 

 

Perhaps social groups in your life have a lot of people like this? Because I have never in my life actually seen a white person say namaste except on youtube, In my experience I've never seen this.

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Orb said:

I don't see stuff like this commonly anyways, I think you're speaking about a relatively small group of people. 

 

Perhaps social groups in your life have a lot of people like this? Because I have never in my life actually seen a white person say namaste except on youtube, In my experience I've never seen this.

Who cares how many people do it?  I'm not saying it's an epidemic.  It's just worth questioning, I think. 

[Orb]

3 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Who cares how many people do it?  I'm not saying it's an epidemic.  It's just worth questioning, I think. 

Okay I thought you were implying that it's something that everyone does in the west or something. 

[Phil]

22 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

What is it to use one word from a language you don't actually speak used as a signifier for something you identify as?  What is the point?    It's just as dumb when American punk bands sing in an English accent to seem genuinely "punk".

The intention behind the usage of the word would be assumed on behalf of another, which the word means there isn’t. It might be a tiny stretch but namaste is more akin to no-identity, than identity. That’s the sheer beauty of the word really. ‘Transcendent’ of culture, identity, etc. No one has ever made a nickname using a version of namaste. 🙂

[Jonas Long]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

The intention behind the usage of the word would be assumed on behalf of another, which the word means there isn’t. It might be a tiny stretch but namaste is more akin to no-identity, than identity. That’s the sheer beauty of the word really. ‘Transcendent’ of culture, identity, etc. No one has ever made a nickname using a version of namaste. 🙂

Dude, it s used in dumbass comedy all the time.  Do you want to leave the yoga studio? "Nah-I'm-a-stay" 

 

[Phil]

@Jonas Long

😂 😂 😂 

 

[Orb]

@Someone here

 

For someone who claims he likes to "understand", you've done very little research on the history of religion and mysticism. 

 

The non dual pointing has originated from all cultures around the world. Not just Hinduism. The Non dual truth comes first, then comes culture/religion. The religions are different ways of trying to point to the same truth.

 

There were christian mystics like Meister Eckhart and Marguerite Porete who grew up in europe and pointed to the true Nature and had 0 exposure to Indian culture. 

 

 

 

Ever heard of her? She was a badass.

 

Claiming the non dual pointing came solely from a specific culture (coincidentally the culture YOU grew up in) is the most arrogant thing to say.

 

It's essentially spiritual elitism, just like how some Christians believe that their culture is the most well ordered and sane while the other cultures around the world are savage and demonic. 

 

The same kind of elitism.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Orb

[Joseph Maynor]

17 hours ago, Someone here said:

Relax. You are overthinking this my dude. 

 

I'm not gonna take the bait from you, sorry.  I don't argue about spiritual enlightenment anymore.  I share a perspective in words that seems right to me at the time I make it and that's it.  However, I don't do this to people who tell me they aren't interested.  I try not to force my "sharing" onto others where it's unwanted as a rule.   I do this for a reason, and that is -- spiritual enlightenment can only emerge in you.  If you think I'm the only one thinking about spiritual enlightenment or potentially "overthinking" look around you man!  You're surrounded by overthinking on these forums that you spend so much time on.  What I was trying to get across, if you read what I wrote, is that spiritual enlightenment has nothing to do with thinking or belief.  If that wasn't taken positively or constructively, you probably don't resonate with me and that's fine.  I probably don't resonate with you either.  Because I see spiritual enlightenment as a personal transformation, it could be anything that helps or hinders you in that quest for attainment.  You could see a tree while on LSD and have an awakening.  You could look at your hand and have an awakening.  You could hear someone say something or write something and have an awakening, the list goes on and on.  I think the key is to be honest, and I appreciate your rejection of me.  That saves me time and is upfront where I can spend my sharing time where it's wanted and/or at least useful.  I do like to share on occasion though because I feel like I've made a lot of progress in this work and I try to help others avoid traps I circled the wagons on for years if I can.  It's always my dream that I can say -- look dude, I wasted a lot of time doing this, I'm gonna tell you how to bypass that.  But the reality is most people have to go through something themselves, they aren't gonna be able to take someone else's mere words about it.  Your mind will falsify it from the get go.  Words seem too cheap.  They are and they aren't paradoxically though.  We can share lessons we learned in words and try to help people where we didn't get that help ourselves.  On the other hand, you can't teach a 15-year-old through words and teachings to have the mentality of a 45-year-old.  Life is about personally going through it and feeling through it -- learning those lessons through your own experience.  You can't experience for another person.  I think this is something that every parent knows very well.  The first condition of any win-win relation is a willingness to charitably hear the other person's point of view and to be safe to relate with.  I don't relate with people who dismiss me out of hand.  That's another one of those lessons that took me a lot of years to learn and even more to put into consistent practice.  Even though I don't like to argue about spiritual enlightenment, I will relate to people who are safe to relate with and willing to consider my attempts to share my insights.  The problem is a lot of people are bought into ideas that I've come to challenge on my path.  Spirituality is like religion and politics where it's just dangerous territory to discuss because people are so personally invested.  You gotta find people who share some common ground, or at least a common value for openness in order to safely discuss these topics.  I safeguard my mental peace and happiness like a hawk.  I'm not going to try to convince a diehard Trump supporter that Trump is stupid, full of shite, and/or effin' nuts.  I might be crazy, but I ain't stupid I like to say.  I'm not going to be the martyr that's telling the truth while being whipped by everyone else.  That's a lose-win relation in my judgment.  I'm about win-win relations.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Joseph Maynor

[Someone here]

@Joseph Maynor you seriously think I'm gonna read all of that? 

[Alexander]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

@Joseph Maynor you seriously think I'm gonna read all of that? 

Lol.You may try unless you have ADHD you may check your psychiatrist.I've read it all.

[Someone here]

@Alexander can you summarise what he is saying to me ?